Opinions on current state of alchemist?

[Ganigumo]

HumbleGamer wrote:

- Expert weapon proficiency ( lvl 5 ) and master weapon proficiency ( lvl 13 )
- Bombs like cantrips with quick alchemy ( 1 action tocreate 1 to throw )
- Less reagents per day ( eventually, something like the alchemical study investigator, or just a progression like the poisoner/herbalist one ).

Maybe we'll see some homebrew wave alchemist soon.

I'm a bit tempted to write some homebrew rules to correct alchemist myself, although alchemists are almost the "beta" version of wave casters already since their "spells" are always max level. To adapt that strengthwise to an alchemist you would definitely need stronger items though unless you buffed perpetuals significantly.

If I were dming the campaign I'd be fine introducing it, but as a player it would feel a bit wierd. The primary goals would be to make alchemist more consistent, with less jarring power dips without buffing their potential overall.

[Watery Soup]

Ganigumo wrote:

without buffing their potential overall.

Then you'll need to do stuff like make Unreliable but Moderately Inconveniencing Bomb into Reliable but Barely Inconveniencing Bomb. It's fine but I'd rather see Unreliable but Actually Debilitating Bombs, which is admittedly a power bump.

Upgrading the power of the alchemist isn't the end of the world. The only real problem is the meta - of all the classes, half of them have to be below average, so if you're constantly taking the bottom half of the classes and upgrading them to be on par with the top half, you end up with power inflation, eventually unbalancing the whole system.

Then, when it becomes too difficult to write high level scenarios, Paizo's going to have to throw up their hands and reboot the whole franchise, like they did with First Edition.

[SuperBidi]

Watery Soup wrote:

Dazzled gives a 20% miss chance, which is huge. If an enemy would hit on a nat 6 (75% hit), the 20% miss chance is better than a +3 AC (it'd be +3 AC if the enemy never crit, but dazzled also negates crits 15% of the time); if the enemy would hit on a nat 11 (50% hit), the 20% miss chance is better than a +2 AC.

So even if the enemy has a 50-75% chance of making the save, it's still, on average, worth more than a standard +1 AC bonus (because it also negates crits, and is stackable with everything) of whoever the enemy is attacking.

My main gripe against Debilitating is the chance of success. The conditions are not that bad, and you have the choice between many (even if Dazzled is clearly the best one). But debuff is mostly useful against bosses, or at least high level enemies. Debuffing a single low level enemy seems worthless. And these enemies will be hard to hit and will have an easy time succeeding at their Fortitude save. Considering the cost of Debilitating (in feats, actions, reagents (if you don't use Perpetuals otherwise you pay with lower efficiency bombs) and it's limitation to once per round, this is far too unreliable.

If I'm looking for Debuff, either I use the ones directly on bombs that don't ask for a save, either I use an (Bird) Animal Companion for the easy debuff or if I really want an unreliable debuff, I can use Necrotic Bombs. Sure, a critical success happens rarely, but Sickened 3 or 4 is a death sentence: High risk high gain.

[Ganigumo]

Watery Soup wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

without buffing their potential overall.

Then you'll need to do stuff like make Unreliable but Moderately Inconveniencing Bomb into Reliable but Barely Inconveniencing Bomb. It's fine but I'd rather see Unreliable but Actually Debilitating Bombs, which is admittedly a power bump.

Upgrading the power of the alchemist isn't the end of the world. The only real problem is the meta - of all the classes, half of them have to be below average, so if you're constantly taking the bottom half of the classes and upgrading them to be on par with the top half, you end up with power inflation, eventually unbalancing the whole system.

Then, when it becomes too difficult to write high level scenarios, Paizo's going to have to throw up their hands and reboot the whole franchise, like they did with First Edition.

By potential I kind of mean their "optimal" form, the one people will do math numbers and crunch with to show how they can totally do the same damage or more than other classes (although often fail to note how missing that t1 persistent damage, or an early recovery ruins the math). The goal isn't to make alchemist top tier, just feel better to play.

Debilitating would need a bit of a rewrite, but at least the first would be something like:
Debilitating: Choose one of the following effects dazzled, deafened, flat-footed, or a –5-foot status penalty to Speeds (same as before) enemies hit by the splash damage of the bomb make a fort save against your alchemist DC. On a failure the target(s) suffer the effects until the start of the alchemist's next turn.

Greater debilitating: choose one of the following effects, enfeebled, stupified, clumsy, drained (this one might be a bit much), 5 foot penalty to speed
enemies hit by the splash damage of the bomb make a fort save against your alchemist DC. When choosing one of these effects the increase the additive level by 1. (to additive 3)
Critical success: no effect
Success: The first level of the effect you chose (i.e 5 foot penalty to speed, enfeebled 1)
failure: double the effect of a success (i.e 10 foot penalty, enfeebled 2)
critical failure: triple the effect of a success (i.e 15 foot penalty, enfeebled 3

True debilitating bomb: Choose one of the following effects: Blinded (until the start of your next turn), Prone, Fatigued, Sickened, Slowed 1.
Enemies hit by the splash damage of your bomb make a fort save against your alchemist DC. On a success or critical success they are unaffected, otherwise they suffer the effect. When choosing one of these effects increase the additive level by 2 (to additive 4)

Obviously I haven't tested this or anything but this is the direction I would go with debilitating bombs.